Lawrence Downes simply hates it that people aren’t indifferent to illegality. Wouldn’t it be nice if he engaged people’s arguments instead of imputing base motives to them? We philosophers insist on being charitable to our opponents. This means, inter alia, imputing good motives to them. For example, on the war in Iraq, you should assume that President Bush is well-intentioned—even if you believe he is not—and address his policies. Are the policies making things better? Are they making things worse? By what standard? In my experience, progressives are far more likely than conservatives to impute bad motives to their opponents. How many times have you heard a progressive call someone a “bigot” or describe someone as “prejudiced”? Who makes accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia? Who uses scurrilous terms such as “fascist,” “authoritarian,” and “theocrat”? Could it be that progressives have created academic and journalistic echo chambers? How do you learn to argue when everyone around you believes what you do?